The Case for Ghosts

July 3, 2006
When an author claims to make a "case for ghosts," the reader expects documentation--lots of it. One expects case histories of documented occurrences, statistical analyses of representative events, and a rational, good-faith attempt to find both normal and paranormal explanations for these events. Unfortunately, Danelek's book fails in each of these expectations. More a philosophical and phenomenological treatise, Danelek expounds on why ghosts might exist and how they might be documented. A seemingly reasonable explanation for a phenomenon is not proof that the phenomenon actually occurs, as Carl Jung pointed out 100 years ago. Jung studied poltergeists, yet Danelek never even mentions him-nor does he cite the near-death experience scholarship of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross and Raymond Moody (Life After Life), which may represent the best evidence so far for the survival of souls after death. The book contains a few anecdotes, but none of these are documented. To add insult, Danelek's writing style is frustratingly roundabout-why use two words when eight will confuse the reader even further?